- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
if you use tmax use RS or you will get green metalic stain/fog
only removable through farmers reducer
only removable through farmers reducer
Stone, I haven't used DD-X but I understand it's similar to T-Max developer and I've been using that since the 90s, both the regular and RS versions. In case (and I realize this is a very big IF) it is like T-Max in this regard, my observation on different dilutions: if time and temperature are adjusted to get the same contrast there is little if any difference from the label 1+4 up to 1+6, and not much at 1+7. I am not a big fan of the 1+9 dilution. It's not "bad" but I don't like the midtones as much which seem a bit depressed to me at that dilution. I tend to use it at 1+5 for the times given for 1+4, or sometimes 1+6 with a bit more time. It really doesn't make much difference.
For T-Max I'd say dilute it further for economy, at least to 1+6 or maybe 1+7, but not to expect radically different results once you dial in your times. DD-X may be similar but you'll have to try to see.
This thread just goes forever, but seeing MrRed in his freaking dust mask, demanding to know what's wrong with powders made it all worthwhile.
if you use tmax use RS or you will get green metalic stain/fog
only removable through farmers reducer
if you use tmax use RS or you will get green metalic stain/fog
only removable through farmers reducer
Do not confuse pyrocatechol with pyrogallol, which is pyro. Pyrocatechol is much less toxic (though still somewhat toxic), and the stain it produces is a bit different. It is more like hydroquinone, though far from the same.
Caffeic acid may be the active ingredient in caffenol, a do-it-yourself black-and-white photographic developer made from instant coffee.[19] The developing chemistry is similar to that of catechol or pyrogallol
Actually - resolution (which is what you are talking about) has nothing to do with sharpness.
A large, yet blurry negative, while it could be enlarged quite a bit before you get to see the grain structure on the print break down, will still be blurry.
In the studio, there are ways to overcome the depth of field issues, as you noted, however, that does not negate the fact that the longer the focal length, the smaller the depth of field. That is not a matter of reading a table, its a matter of physics. While this is not absolute, in most cases, focal length tends to get longer, the larger to format, due to the respective angle of view.
The quality of the lenses is not in question here at all, and it may very well be that some 4X5 lenses have by far better line per MM then some MF or other lenses, but that will not help increase the depth of field, or reduce camera movement.
This thread just goes forever, but seeing MrRed in his freaking dust mask, demanding to know what's wrong with powders made it all worthwhile.
But at the final print, that circle is enlarged. ... As photographers, we can screw up most of them.
I agree that a blurry negative will produce a blurry print regardless of format. But your interpretation of depth of field is incorrect. Depth of field is calculated from the range of distances that will render a point within a given circle of confusion on the negative. In the US, generally the circle of confusion is usually given as .001 inch for 35mm and possibly larger for larger formats. The lack of good standardization doesn't help. But at the final print, that circle is enlarged. The actual blur size is dependent on the total magnification from subject to print (and f/ stop). That is the physics. Actual sharpness depends not only on physics but also on lens resolution, focus accuracy, camera shake, processing, enlarging accuracy, and probably other factors. As photographers, we can screw up most of them.
RS as i eventually learned it, is for replenishment and ROTARY systems
i'd hate for stone to have similar problems that i had
with NO SUPPORT from the manufacturer.
im not even sure why they bothered with the other stuff
except to confuse people
maybe they have changed the ingredients and manufacturer since champion makes it all now
but i wouldn't risk using the non RS ... replenished, single shot, rotary, small tank, deeptank ...
its not worth the trouble of ruining one's film. developer is cheap, exposed film is pretty much priceless.
all true, and as i said, again, the larger the format, the harder all of those are to control, due to weight, size, focal length etc... increasing the chance of having a blurry image to start out with as the format gets larger.
His move to rotary processing seems counterproductive for his preferences.
Champion, having been stiffed in the bankruptcy, has apparently now been replaced by Tetenal as manufacturer of Kodak-branded photo chemicals....maybe they have changed the ingredients and manufacturer since champion makes it all now...
No, its just a fact of life. The extraordinary is when someone invests extra time and effort in direct proportion to the format he is using.If you are making the argument that small is simply easier than big, that is an oversimplification.
An example would be the 50% and more of Americans (of which about 96% own a car) who toodle their 4WD SUV's around town.Sure my Fiat 500 is easier to toodle around town in but it can't do the same work as the 4WD C2500 I drive to work can.
Very true. The only way I have been able to observe significant edge effects is with reduced agitation.
Best edge effects and 'perceived' sharpness I ever saw was with Pyrocat-HD, which is available in liquid kits, and is quite benign compared to pyrogallol developers. But since that isn't an option I suggested the TFX-2 and FA-1027 developers from the Formulary.
Liquid, not pyro developers that give very sharp negatives.
Stone, you don't give much wiggle room for creativity. I'm sorry for saying this, but I think you pay way too much attention to these details with film developers and such. Be best to just get some HC-110 and go shooting more.
Ok, I'll inquire, HC-110 has a LITTLE but of pyrocatechol in it, so I assume PYROCAT has a LOT of it?
What's the difference? Both are neuro-toxins correct? I'm trying to educate myself. If I'm wrong and asking, try not to bash me, just want to be well informed.
Thanks.
I will let the chemists explain the differences between pyrocstechin and pyrogallol.
Pyrocat is mucho different from HC110. Sharper, finer grain, and a different tonal palette.
1. No Powders
2. No Pyro
3. No replenishing (one shot only).
RS as i eventually learned it, is for replenishment and ROTARY systems
i'd hate for stone to have similar problems that i had
with NO SUPPORT from the manufacturer.
im not even sure why they bothered with the other stuff
except to confuse people
maybe they have changed the ingredients and manufacturer since champion makes it all now
but i wouldn't risk using the non RS ... replenished, single shot, rotary, small tank, deeptank ...
its not worth the trouble of ruining one's film. developer is cheap, exposed film is pretty much priceless.
Stone, you don't give much wiggle room for creativity. I'm sorry for saying this, but I think you pay way too much attention to these details with film developers and such. Be best to just get some HC-110 and go shooting more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?